Somalia

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We must be, because as far as I can tell you're saying:

"No, you can have perpetual war of all against all and it'll be great. We'll be just like animals; it'll be some awesome flourishment."

In any event, I'm not really interested in this rabbit trail. Peace.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm more trying to say that the perpetual struggle you describe would likely be highly mitigated and circumscribed as compared to the all-out war of conquest that might easily result when one group possesses overwhelming power.

But we can drop it if you like. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I think you're letting the actual nature of mankind taint your analysis of what would happen under Hobbes's views on the nature of mankind. Remember, Hobbesian anarchy is based on his belief that man is men's wolf, which is false. As Copernicus unwittingly noted, Hobbesian anarchy requires a state to get out of the chaos (although how all of these non-cooperating wolves are supposed to cooperate enough to choose and install the state is never made clear by Hobbes), whereas the actual nature of mankind, which is more inclined to cooperation than conflict, does not. Social cooperation and order arises spontaneously out of self-interested individuals engaging in specialization, the division of labor and exchange, based on the logic of serving self-interest through mutual accomodation and eschewing costly and risky conflicts.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We must be, because as far as I can tell you're saying:

"No, you can have perpetual war of all against all and it'll be great. We'll be just like animals; it'll be some awesome flourishment."

In any event, I'm not really interested in this rabbit trail. Peace.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm more trying to say that the perpetual struggle you describe would likely be highly mitigated and circumscribed as compared to the all-out war of conquest that might easily result when one group possesses overwhelming power.

But we can drop it if you like. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I think you're letting the actual nature of mankind taint your analysis of what would happen under Hobbes's views on the nature of mankind. Remember, Hobbesian anarchy is based on his belief that man is men's wolf, which is false. As Copernicus unwittingly noted, Hobbesian anarchy requires a state to get out of the chaos (although how all of these non-cooperating wolves are supposed to cooperate enough to choose and install the state is never made clear by Hobbes), whereas the actual nature of mankind, which is more inclined to cooperation than conflict, does not. Social cooperation and order arises spontaneously out of self-interested individuals engaging in specialization, the division of labor and exchange, based on the logic of serving self-interest through mutual accomodation and eschewing costly and risky conflicts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unwittingly? the only thing unwitting about it is what youre point in discussing it is, since its a prime example of a philosophy based on erroneous assumptions, which, when corrected lead to a state. Thats not what I understand your philosophy to be.

[Felz]

Hobbes' War does NOT equate to actual predation.

"For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known... In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain."

It doesn't matter wether war is pareto inferior to peace which Borodog usually points to (of course without using the correct economic term) as long as there's no institution to get past the prisoners dilemma that is Hobbes' state of nature. It's game theory 101.

[Richard Tanner]

Damn Boro, that's some deep research, bonus points for calling me "Dick Tanner" not many people do that and I'm rather fond of the name.

That said, this has gone on long enough, you're either obviously missing the point or purposfully being obtuse. What I, and from the looks of things several others, are saying is that of all the possible governmental systems, certainly AC will be better then some of them. Much the same as of all the possible results of AC (ACtopia to Thunderdome) statism will ceratinly be better then some of them.

This is neither new, nor suprising. So what gives with all the shock and awe.

Cody

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Damn Boro, that's some deep research, bonus points for calling me "Dick Tanner" not many people do that and I'm rather fond of the name.

That said, this has gone on long enough, you're either obviously missing the point or purposfully being obtuse. What I, and from the looks of things several others, are saying is that of all the possible governmental systems, certainly AC will be better then some of them. Much the same as of all the possible results of AC (ACtopia to Thunderdome) statism will ceratinly be better then some of them.

This is neither new, nor suprising. So what gives with all the shock and awe.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Deflection from his OP and the mises article which are so absurdly non-indicative of AC. Accept a concession of a made up position, sound optimistic about the course of future debate, even sound conciliatory. Standard face saving tactics when you've been exposed.

[adanthar]

Hell, I'll go one further:

AC-land is doomed to real world failure because, among many other reasons, it's a gigantically inefficient hamster wheel where everyone spends 24 hours a day paying off a myriad of transaction costs or dying from 'unfortunate market failure' prior to 'market correction' (which happens over and over). This inefficiency is an asset on one level, however; a genocidal, worst case scenario government is far more efficient than AC-land in slaughtering its population in the short term. That's not to say that AC-land wouldn't result in (insert horrible outcome or neo-feudalism here), but it'd take longer - Mogadishu is one of the most violent places on Earth, but enough money, resources or know-how buys you a chance at survival. Therefore, I'd probably rather live in AC-land than under the Khmer Rouge, having more faith than I would still be alive after the "thank God it's finally over" ending of one than the other.

Is that a huge concession, or what?

[Copernicus]

subsitute "Rube Goldberg device" for "hamster wheel" and I agree completely, lol.

Which reminds me, I saw "Fractured" the other night. An okay movie, pretty obvious from the start. But Anthony Hopkins character built these awsome "ball roller coasters" (almost rube goldberg devices, less gimmicks though).

Spoiler in white:
<font color="white">Probably an easy fix, but Ive been staring at numbers too much today. What about double jeopardy in AC? How do you (efficiently) prevent a deep pocket from repeatedly dragging you into one DRO after another until he gets the result he wants?</font>

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
subsitute "Rube Goldberg device" for "hamster wheel" and I agree completely, lol.

Which reminds me, I saw "Fractured" the other night. An okay movie, pretty obvious from the start. But Anthony Hopkins character built these awsome "ball roller coasters" (almost rube goldberg devices, less gimmicks though).

Spoiler in white:
<font color="white">Probably an easy fix, but Ive been staring at numbers too much today. What about double jeopardy in AC? How do you (efficiently) prevent a deep pocket from repeatedly dragging you into one DRO after another until he gets the result he wants?</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer is going to be a familer one, market forces. If the people don't want Double Jeopardy, they won't pay for DROs that do it. Now what keeps you from being victimized if alot of people want you to be...well protection of minorities isn't a clear point.

Cody

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
subsitute "Rube Goldberg device" for "hamster wheel" and I agree completely, lol.

Which reminds me, I saw "Fractured" the other night. An okay movie, pretty obvious from the start. But Anthony Hopkins character built these awsome "ball roller coasters" (almost rube goldberg devices, less gimmicks though).

Spoiler in white:
<font color="white">Probably an easy fix, but Ive been staring at numbers too much today. What about double jeopardy in AC? How do you (efficiently) prevent a deep pocket from repeatedly dragging you into one DRO after another until he gets the result he wants?</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer is going to be a familer one, market forces. If the people don't want Double Jeopardy, they won't pay for DROs that do it. Now what keeps you from being victimized if alot of people want you to be...well protection of minorities isn't a clear point.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not "people" that want DJ, its "person". There has to be an ability to unilaterally bring someone to a DRO, or no one would get justice. If a deep pocket wants to bring the same "offender" before different DROs what is to stop him? Especially if decisions are not made public which I think was the AC line last week. Not every DRO is going to know if theres been a decision involving the same circumstances and individuals.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
But apparently the statists on this board, including Copernicus, are now happy to concede that law, property rights, contract, and the social order and economic development that arises therefrom can all exist in the absence of governments. So there's nothing more to argue about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a statist. I don't concede this.